• Yes, the 27" iMac's screen is "better than HD" – kind of like most monitors

    Friday, October 30th, 2009

    Devin Coldewey is a Seattle-based writer and photographer. He has written for the TechCrunch network since 2007. Some posts he’d like you to read: The Dangers of Externalizing Knowledge | Generation i | Surveillant Society | Choose Two | Frame Wars | The User’s Manifesto | Our Great Sin His personal website is coldewey.cc. → Learn More

    specs_display_20091020I’ll make this quick. I’ve heard two or three independent sources saying that the new iMac’s screen is “better than HD.” Let’s examine that claim for a moment here. If HD is 1920×1080 and the iMac is 2560×1440, then yes, it is better than HD. But why would you make that claim when most monitors over 22 inches are at least that resolution? I’ve been using a fantastic Dell 2407WFP for five years or so, and it goes up to 1920×1200. Better than HD, before HD even came around!

    That’s all. I just wanted to register a facepalm at this ridiculous talking point. I’m sure the new iMac screen is great (better than mine, to be sure), and actually it looks like a pretty good deal, but “better than HD” is just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

    Update: Sorry if it wasn’t clear; by “at least that resolution,” I mean 1920×1080, i.e. HD. That’s why saying “better than HD” is meaningless, almost every monitor is better than HD. Also, I am not criticizing Apple, people. If you read the post, you will find I praised the monitor. I’m criticizing a phrase I’ve seen bandied about recently. Time to chill out.

    Sponsored Ads

    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Sponsored Ads

    Sponsored Ads

    Upcoming Events

    E3 2012

    Los Angeles, CA

    Disrupt SF 2012

    San Francisco, CA